The Act of Union was in 1840 and the first government of the colony of Canada began in 1841. The 150th anniversary of the grand union of the two Canadian cultures in Upper and Lower Canada has long past. We are however approaching the 150th anniversary of the founding of the Dominion of Canada that united the colonies of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Unlike the colony of Canada it was conceived as a federation of more than two parts and because it was a federation other colonies joined the Dominion at later dates such as 1871 for BC, 1905 for Saskachewan and 1949 for Newfoundland.

Quote:

He said he only highlighted the need for asserting Quebec’s place in Canada as a founding partner of Confederation.

Couillard said he wants that to be a central theme in the lead-up to the 150th anniversary of Confederation in 2017.

That's true for the English-speaking delegates, perhaps. The Quebec delegates and their successors have generally believed they were one of the founding nations, alongside English Canadians. The different understandings of the foundational bargain go some way to explain the troubles since.

That's true for the English-speaking delegates, perhaps. The Quebec delegates and their successors have generally believed they were one of the founding nations, alongside English Canadians. The different understandings of the foundational bargain go some way to explain the troubles since.

I agree totally. It is why any constitutional change is so difficult. The colony of BC did not join ROC (a subset of Canada) it joined the Dominion of Canada as a full partner.

If we were reorganizing the continent I believe that Ontario and Quebec are a natural fit and could be their own dynamic country. I think a coastal nation stretching from the Oregon coast to Alaska woud be the most progressive country in a new alignment.

If we are rewriting the Canadian constitution then asymetrical federalism and fiscal imbalances need to be the focus not the two founding nations theory.

Why do you suggest that he ought to have been laughed out of court on that count? You think it is patently evident that he is scheming with mafia-related individuals?

From what I've seen of the evidence presented, I personally haven't seen anything that supports this conclusion — let alone lead so obviously to it so as to render a contrary conclusion absurd.

Likewise. The Commission's lack of a "smoking gun" in respect of Accurso was rather blatant, even embarrassing. Many observers said Me Lebel was acting like a less than competent cop trying to extract a confession out of Accurso. That was my impression.

Yes, I do think it's obvious. Not to a criminal prosecution standard, but in the court of public opinion, I think it's pretty obvious Accurso is mobbed up. (You can't literally be "laughed out of court" by the judge in this country, anyway, and Charbonneau isn't acting as a judge in a criminal trial capacity to begin with.) He was on a first-name basis with the Rizzutos, owns several construction companies which use shell corporations to disguise their identities, has been directly implicated by Zambito and many other witnesses...not to mention the hundreds of charges he's currently facing while being allowed to remain on bail and walk around freely.

He hasn't been convicted, and therefore is entitled to the presumption of innocence in court. He's easily outmaneuvered LeBel. But Bärlüer, do you really think he isn't at all connected to the mob?

True, the evidence shows that. But it also shows that he purposefully avoided to get entangled with them business-wise. So, basically, mafia-related individuals circled around him, but partnerships never developed.

Quote:

owns several construction companies which use shell corporations to disguise their identities,

I'm not sure I know what you're referring to. What I know is that shell corporations have apparently provided false invoices to companies owned by Accurso, allowing him to fraudulently evade tax.

Quote:

has been directly implicated by Zambito and many other witnesses...not to mention the hundreds of charges he's currently facing while being allowed to remain on bail and walk around freely.

He hasn't been convicted, and therefore is entitled to the presumption of innocence in court. He's easily outmaneuvered LeBel. But Bärlüer, do you really think he isn't at all connected to the mob?

Obviously, he has connections with various individuals in the mafia. But I haven't seen evidence of business ties, scheming, etc. with the mafia. (As with someone like real estate promoter Tony Magi, say.) I'm not saying it's impossible, but I don't think it's been established — and certainly not patently so.

Next step: Institute tuition fees in K-11 and CEGEP, and user fees for health care - geared to income. Why not? Make the rich pay, right? At least I was happy to hear some callers and texters on CBC Radio Noon today who saw through this faux-populist pretext for the elimination of universality. The right way to go is to reduce child care fees and increase taxes on the wealthy and corporations. Quebecers pay more tax, and they get more services, and we like it that way. I was actually pleased to hear some comments to this effect on the radio today. Unfortunately the PQ is lost and stumbling in the dark. I'll have to go see what QS is saying about this.

Our friend Nora Loreto http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/nora-loreto was among the people who phoned in to oppose the phony (and misogynist) populism evoked to end universality in child care. Universal programs are just that - they are NOT means tested. Raise income taxes for the wealthy and go after tax loopholes if more money is needed from the "rich" - don't attack public education, including this program, or public health care.

Nora is the mum of twin babies, who like many twins were a bit premature and needed a lot of help. She wrote some time back on her board about the importance of public healthcare, and on the CBC talk show, talked about the importance of CPE (Centres de la petite enfance - Early Childhood Centres) for parents and especially mothers to take part in the labour force while being assured that their children were receiving quality care. And spoke of her jagged income as a freelance writer (hmm, rather familiar with that one...). For us freelancers, is is common to have a lucrative contract one year, much less the next and so forth.

I'm glad to see that QS is coming out fighting on this. By the way, there is a demonstration this Saturday in Montréal, in solidarity with the right to negotiate and pensions.

I did a post on cutbacks to food aid and other aid to pupils at a school board northeast of Montréal, in one of the poorest school board areas in Québec, but it is in the other thread on austerity.

Barrette said the Liberal government has agreed on the main points of the law.

In an appearance on CBC Radio's Daybreak Thursday morning, Barrette said Quebec's public purse is in such bad shape that the government needs to change the nature of its salary agreement with the province's doctors.

"It's a change. It's some sort of a breach of the agreement that we had, but what are we facing today? We've never faced in my time in terms of negotiations, we've never faced a situation as dire as we are today," he said.

One day after the English Montreal School Board thumbed its nose at the government, saying it will not make the ordered $2.3 million in cuts to its $280-million budget, a tough talking Bolduc fired back with a firm no way.

"We expect all school boards to participate in the government's efforts to balance the budget," Bolduc said in a statement issued by his press aide.

"We are very firm on this."

Bolduc brushed past reporters at the National Assembly and refused to comment.

The aide did not elaborate on possible consequences of the EMSB's defiance except to say no scenario is excluded.

The City of Montreal wants the Quebec labour relations board to hold the police brotherhood to account for revenue it claims was lost by police issuing fewer tickets to protest against Bill 3, the province's proposed municipal pension reforms.

"The reality is we felt that there is a link between what is going on right now and those numbers. We felt that afterwards, the brotherhood has to pay," Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre told a news conference Thursday afternoon.

Not that there's a quota or anything, you understand. But we are gonna need that money, guys.

So the CSSS layer of adminnistration will close, but service points (hospitals, clinics etc.) are to remain open. Barrette says this will permit easier access to services (Quebec sucks comparatively on this measure) and simply streamline by removing bureaucracy. In my region (Estrie), all 13 local centres will be merged into one Integrated Health and Social Services Centre, with no closures planned. We shall see. There's also the concern, among others, that this represents centralization and will drown out smaller units and local accountability - Dr Barrette seems to want to be the Roi de la Sante....

This time, Mr. Coiteux said, the government believes it has the public on board and will not be swayed — not by protest concerts outside the National Assembly or mocking papier-mâché effigies paraded through the streets.

“It’s inevitable” people will be unhappy, Mr. Coiteux said. They can play all the sad violin music they like, but it will not derail what he calls a national recovery effort. “Everybody, according to his or her means, has to contribute,” he said.

I finally found the outcome of Gaétan Barrette's quiet criminal trial: Quietly acquitted, of course. How his being on trial for illegal lobbying didn't surface at all during the election campaign, I have no idea.

Montreal police are leading the investigation into officers who stood by and did nothing during the protests. The police force, not the city, will determine if suspensions or firings are warranted, Desrochers said.

Apparently it's now up to the police to determine if you get fired or suspended. Vive Couillard!

Montreal police are leading the investigation into officers who stood by and did nothing during the protests. The police force, not the city, will determine if suspensions or firings are warranted, Desrochers said.

Apparently it's now up to the police to determine if you get fired or suspended. Vive Couillard!

We're talking about this in several different threads for some reason. Anyway, I think you may have misinterpreted the story, which states:

Quote:

Montreal police are leading the investigation into officers who stood by and did nothing during the protests. The police force, not the city, will determine if suspensions or firings are warranted, Desrochers said.

It's talking about police officers, whose employer is the SPVM. So of course it's the employer - "the police force, not the city" - which disciplines, suspends, fires its own employees. They can of course file grievances, in which case it will ultimately be an arbitrator or court which determines.

And not sure about the "Vive Couillard"? His only connection with the city hall affair was proposing Bill 3. The province has nothing to do with any of these disciplinary actions.

Which is why I originally opened that separate thread. It looked as if that story was going to be worth discussing on its own.

So the common fee for daycares is dead. Sneakily, higher fees beyond the $7.30 will be apid not to the daycare centres, but to the government at tax time. And indexation of the daily fee, it turns out, is not to inflation but to the growth in costs of the system.

Couillard is even redefining the concept of "universality." It doesn't mean what you thought, he says.

“We’re giving the boat a push while it’s drifting at sea. Obviously, the recovery plan will make waves, which can make the short-sighted seasick,” Coiteux told an audience of businesspeople at a hotel conference room on Friday.

After the practically non-existent travelling welfare recipients, now we have UQAM (Université du Québec à Montréal) using funds earmarked for aid to DISABLED STUDENTS to make up its deficit. Doesn't that violate rules on equal access?

Lagatta, that story is really unclear. There's no evidence, or even allegation as far as I can see, that UQAM is actually going to reduce any services to disabled students. But what bothers me even more is any diversion of our fire, which must be aimed squarely at the Liberal government. It would be very nice for them to slash subsidies, and then have the recipients (universities, students, teachers, etc.) fight each other over who should feel the pain. We must be careful not to get sucked in to such debates.

Agreed with Unionist. As with cuts by municipalities, it's hard to blame the universities for doing what they have to to make up the continuing, unannounced cuts imposed by government (this one and its predecessor). Since universities generally have salaries and benefits as their major budget item and these are subject to collective agreements, and considering that Quebec universities are massively udnerfunded compared to other provinces, the only thing that can easily be cut is services. Which sucks. This is a vicious spiral. Couillard and Bolduc and the others all know this, but are engaged in an effort to shrink the State of Quebec by stealth, since no one would voluntarily vote to shrink it this way.

Stupid is as stupid does. Couillard and Barrette and co. just exposed their real face. I think they already have but this is pretty blatant. A lot of people will not be happy with this. But do the Liberals listen? Of course not. Philippe Couillard is a Harperite ,at the least a Thatcherite, and definately a Reaganite.

And in the next corner the putrid PKP. If that's not enough,Frankie Legault and the CAQA.

So I think the well-off folks are going to be happy for generations to come. YAY!